It’s a billion-dollar question: Should we care that there’s a GH59-09418A printed circuit board inside a Samsung smartphone?

At US District Court in San Jose, California, the heart of Silicon Valley, Apple and Samsung are trying to persuade a jury to see smartphones in very different ways.

It’s a billion-dollar question: Should we care that there’s a GH59-09418A printed circuit board inside a Samsung smartphone?

At US District Court in San Jose, California, the heart of Silicon Valley, Apple and Samsung are trying to persuade a jury to see smartphones in very different ways. An earlier trial in the seven-year case already determined that Samsung infringed three Apple design patents, which cover ornamental elements of a product, and two functional patents, which govern how a product works. But the damages payment a jury now will set depends on just how important the GH59-09418A and thousands of other tidbits are in a phone.

As a result, a parade of Apple and Samsung witnesses have handled various components from Samsung phones: front glass faces, screen displays, and bezels — the rims around the phone’s face. They’re all significant because a Supreme Court decision in 2016 means Samsung could pay damages based on profits from an “article of manufacture.” For Apple, that means the whole phone, and by its calculations, damages of more than $1 billion. For Samsung, it means a few components, and potentially a much lower fee.

On Thursday, Samsung began calling its witnesses in the trial. Over and over, the debate boiled down to the components and whether they’re an article of manufacture.

Now Playing:Watch this: Apple, Samsung to duke it out in court again
2:22

The debate is embodied in this exchange between Apple attorney Amy Wigmore and Timothy Sheppard, a Samsung operations and finance vice president who handled service and repair in the US, as Sheppard held a front glass face from a Samsung smartphone.

Wigmore also dug into the details of Samsung’s SAP accounting software to determine whether it accounted separately for profits, research expenses, sales expenses for various components. “If you tell me about a specific component, I can explain sales information and cost. It’s in our SAP database,” he said.

Jinsoo Kim, a vice president in Samsung’s Corporate Design Center, testified through an interpreter that modern smartphones are very complex.

“There are more than 10 antennas involved,” handling different mobile networks, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and other radio communications. And for the total number of components in a phone, the number is hundreds. “If you’re talking about the second-tier suppliers and third-tier suppliers, i’d believe we are talking about thousands of components.”

Supreme Court helps Samsung’s case

After the Supreme Court verdict opened the door for damages based on components instead of the full phone, District Judge Lucy Koh adopted a four-factor test for determining the article of manufacture for an infringed design patent.

To push its case, Samsung called an expert witness, Sam Lucente, an industrial designer and interface designer who worked at IBM, Netscape and Hewlett-Packard. Naturally, he agreed with Samsung.

He said he applied the four-factor test and indeed ordered parts and kits off the internet to replace screens on Samsung phones. “I replaced the display screen, front glass, and bezel in 35 minutes and the phone worked fine,” he said, an action he said bears on the fourth factor about whether a component can be physically separated from the rest of the product.

Lucente argued that the article of manufacture that those patents apply to are only components. “For the D’677 patent, the design applied to glass front face,” he said. “For D’087, patent was the applied to bezel and glass front face. For D’305, the patent was applied to the display screen.”

To tackle another of the four factors, the prominence of the patented feature in a product, Lucente also compared the infringing Galaxy S phone with the noninfringing Galaxy Ace. The Galaxy S infringed the D’677 and D’087 patents that govern the front face of the phone.

“By simply changing a small detail — adding a chrome finish to a feature, changing slightly the shape of button at the bottom and a small change of the bezel — it’s now a noninfringing alternative design,” Lucente said.Apple: See what’s up with the tech giant as it readies new iPhones and more.

First published May 17, 2:17 p.m. PT

Update 3:27 p.m. PT: adds further details from Lucente’s testimony.

‘Hello, humans’: Google’s Duplex could make Assistant the most lifelike AI yet.